In response to your question, let's try, say, here:
Really, Bob? You are comparing the evidence presented of man-made global warming to a poll then? The question begged to be asked is..if there is no prediction of x amount in y amount of time, then how do you come up with the statement of "The time is now"? With all due respect, your last response is simply a dance to avoid the questions.
This would be an insult since it suggests I am uninformed enough not to know how to evaluate scientific studies, and that I wouldn't understand confidence intervals, and standard deviations and the standard elements of scientific evaluation. I may be rusty, but I have a fairly decent idea when folks are trying to pass off junk science as the real thing.
I've had a fairly good look at the science that you've been telling me you've based your thinking upon.
Tell me what you think of it as science, not what people tell you that you should think of it as science. Try at least reviewing the Wikipedia article. Try reading The Republican War on Science. If I can read The War of The World with its right wing slant and learn from it, why can't you learn from something that actually has a left wing slant that comes from its under-criticism of the Democrats and not from falsifying the facts about the Republicans?
You don't need to. You don't have to. You simply might gain from it.
And which are the questions that you're speaking about? Specifically? The more direct you can be, the better an answer I can attempt to offer. I don't pretend to know anything about cap and trade. At this point my attentions are elsewhere, and you'll probably have to look elsewhere for those answers.
Calling my attempts to speak with you "a dance," by the way, qualifies to me as another insult. If I don't want to talk with you about something, all I need do is say, I don't want to talk about that or I don't know anything about that. I was never very good at tap-dancing, and I could never keep my lies straight when I tried lying as I kid. I always ended up looking like an idiot.
[H]ow do you come up with the statement of "The time is now"?
Looking at population growth figures, thinking about fresh water availability and food availability and thinking about what happens with non-populations we've studied under similar conditions. While Malthus may have had the exact data wrong, I suspect that he had some of the basic ideas right, and growth of population against the diminishing availability of resources does appear to suggest a crunch point approaching. Do the research and do the graphing yourself. Huan Yi's pithy comment below is not well developed. It is also very suggestive.
I don't know if that's enough of an answer to your question. I suspect it's not enough to convince you. Waiting for divine intervention, unless it's taking charge and making a difference ourselves, seems to be something that we should not count on. Indeed, taking charge and doing something wholeheartedly, happily, and compassionately is something that approaches the miraculous from where I sit today.
If there is no valid prediction, how does Obama claim that THIS is the time to raise taxes on an already suffering economy for the sake of the planet? And I would appreciate an answer to the other questions some time. Will what America cuts back on offset what Russia, China, India, etc won't? Would your answer be that every little bit helps? Americans are going to go further into debt at a critical point because every little bit helps?
There is a kind of family therapy that is called Solution Focused Therapy.
There is a very helpful style of reasoning that goes with it that cuts through a lot of the stalling that people use to stay crazy. The therapy doesn't care who's to blame or who started the mess. It's not really all that important to solving the problem (they say). The therapist is trained to ask the clients, if this problem were solved in a year, What would You be doing differently.
Any attempt for the client to say that the other party had to do something first, would be rejected. The reasoning is this. If you wait for somebody else to change first, you are not in control of your behavior. Somebody else is. You want to be in charge.
So — we are Americans. How much of your fate do you want the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians to have control over, and how much of it do you want to steer? As an American, I figure that it's always better if I'm in charge of my fate.
Maybe you figure differently. Anyway, that's my answer. If we start running things, and changes start to happen, other people will want to be part of the action, if only to complain. We may even be able to get them to foot part of the bill. If we do nothing, either nothing happens, or we march to somebody else's drum.
Normally when one declares something dangerous one uses percentages and amounts to warn and verify.
Nope. That would be the logical thing to do, I grant you. This is the way people like to pretend they make decisions. We don't do this about rattlesnakes and we don't do this about weapons of mass destruction, do we?
In fact, it's been my experience that this is exactly how we avoid making decisions.
But perhaps you could set me straight on this. News about the drugs you've mentioned has been available for yours. Liver toxicity has been an issue for at least 20 years that I know about. Most drugs also have well set out toxicity levels, above which the dosage is fatal, and they are available at most poison control centers. The fact that most people don't read the drug precautions folder suggests that people are more foolish than they should be.
Sad to say, I have obligations that force me to stop now before I'm finished. Best wishes.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
PS. Of course you can't find an example of being insulting to me, Mike. I don't think you do it on purpose; and I don't really think you have a purposefully malicious bone in your body. It simply pops out every now and again. I'm too touchy myself sometimes, and I'm sorry for that.